[Bug 226038] New: Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

Summary: Merge Review: libpng
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: libpng

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libpng/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]      |[e-mail]
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-03 15:48 EST -------
Good:
* Source URL in canonical.
* Group Tag is from official list.
* All paths begin with macros
* All directories are owned by this or other packages

Must Fix:
* rpmlint errors:
 E: libpng useless-explicit-provides libpng.so.3
 E: libpng tag-not-utf8 %changelog

Minor:
* Not preferred build root.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* Drop the '.' from the devel summary to quite rpmlint.

Is it still true that some graphical boot packages need the static lib?  And if
so, does it make sense to make a sub-package for the static lib?

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-08 15:15 EST -------
Thanks for the review --- all those points are good.

As for the question about the static library, I'm not sure what to do.  The
previous package owner of libjpeg dropped its static library and there's been a
bunch of push-back about that, which makes me wary of doing it to libpng. 
Perhaps a sub-package is the answer; is there any precedent for that?

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-08 15:34 EST -------
See also: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage
recommendation is to package it separately, something like libpng-static

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-12 11:29 EST -------
All these issues are addressed in libpng-1.2.16.

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-08 15:53 EST -------
Hey, folks, why is this ticket closed?  Did someone approve it?

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|                            |Reopened
         Resolution|RAWHIDE                     |
               Flag|fedora-review-              |fedora-review?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-08 15:56 EST -------
Not that I can see, reopening (probably goofed up in the period of review 
rules confusion)

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-08 22:59 EST -------
I closed it because I'd fixed the mentioned issues.  If that's not proper procedure, my fault; but I'm not 
sure why the bug should be ASSIGNED to me when there is not anything apparent for me to do.

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]              |[e-mail]
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-09 04:43 EST -------
I spotted that a better url is certainly
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/libpng.html

make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
is preferred over %makeinstall
Would it work here?

Suggestions:
use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)

Document the Conflict with qt < 0:2.2.2

I reassign to nobody, as per the new new guidelines, this should be
assigned to the reviewer doing the formal review.

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-09 04:45 EST -------
Source match upstream, but source timestamp isn't the same 
than upstream. Next time, please keep timestamp, with spectool -g or 
wget -N for example.

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-09 04:47 EST -------
Another minor suggestion: in
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libpng.la
you can remove the -r since it is not a directory, and you could
even remove the -f such that the command fails if one day the 
file name change or there are no la shipped.

[Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libpng

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEEDINFO
               Flag|                            |needinfo?